https://forums.misfitisland.org/imag.../SlapFight.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
Printable View
https://forums.misfitisland.org/imag.../SlapFight.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
I would have thot one of you could have given us a decent opinion while double billing a client
Interestingly, we recently brought on a new PM that had a client that wanted to follow her over. Her previous employment contract had a 12-month non-solicitation clause and we told the client we couldn't take them on because of it. They came back and basically said, "You're not soliciting us, we unilaterally deciding to move to a different firm. We can work with whoever we want." Corporate legal read that and gave us the green light to move forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
Corporate legal is absolutely correct. So long as your new PM with the non-solicit didn't actively solicit clients of her prior firm to follow her, and that client made their own decision to move to a new (your) firm, you and your PM are good to go. That said, anyone can sue anybody for anything so there's no bar on her former firm attempting to make a claim against her under her non-solicit, but their likelihood of success would be low given the fact pattern above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I have friends who are lawyers I don't even mind skiing with them but that ^^ part alwasy worries meQuote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
I have friends who are lawyers I don't even mind skiing with them but that ^^ part alwasy worries meQuote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
That's not a lawyer problem, that's a client problem, and if we have to point fingers at attorneys, it's a litigator problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Apologies to all my litigator friends.
I worked for a CO based mobile app company that sold for over $100MM in 2013. Only like 3 people had equity. I was younger and it was during the recession- I didn't have the leverage to negotiate for equity.
After the sale, the company reorganized under a new LLC owned by the new parent company. Everyone including front desk staff, UI artists and developers was given a new employment agreement to sign that included a non-compete written by Cooley LLP that said that the employee agreed not to work for another mobile app company or any company that interfaced with mobile apps anywhere in the world for a year if they left the company for any reason.
The new employment agreement also included an NDA.
Almost everyone signed it on day one. A few negotiated geographic terms.
I flat out refused to sign it. My boss was hounded to get me to sign. I refused. The CFO was sent out to get me to sign- "We just need to dot some Is and cross some Ts for the acquisition- did you forget to sign this? Oh, well we really need you to sign this". I refused. The head of my department told me I needed to sign or else. I told him I wouldn't, and I would only talk about it with the CEO since he was the one countersigning.
Finally after about 8 months, the CEO pulled me into his office- "So, you don't like the noncompete? What if I fired you right now for not signing it?"
I told him that I wasn't bound to an NDA with the new legal entity where I had worked for the better part of a year and that if he fired me I would go compete against him and wouldn't hold back on disclosing whatever I wanted about the company.
He relented.
I've seen variations of that same ridiculous noncompete written by the same law firm at two other CO based tech companies where I have worked. I've also seen it enforced against people who left for better opportunities, which ruined people's lives and careers for no reason. Fuck all of that nonsense.
It looks like noncompetes were heavily restricted in CO in the 2022 legislative session, so that is nice to see.
Were you all offered any consideration for signing it?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
They were most likely offered some token consideration that passed muster with legal but didn’t approach the value. That’s the way life is for many. Place’s like Jimmy John’s having sandwich makers sign NCAs was the supreme abuse.
No considerations. No equity payout from the previous company or RSUs at the new company. No transaction bonuses. Just "congrats on being acquired! No one is losing their job. Sign this new employment agreement to secure your employment with the new company."Quote:
Originally Posted by neufox47
The CEO had just made 40+ million dollars and he told me "congrats" in the hallway.
Peripherally related maybe- A couple ski hill owners in upstate NY got in trouble recently for entering an agreement not to hire each others’ employees (amongst other things). Not sure how I feel about the AG wasting her time on such trivial shit but I thought the no-poach agreement was some high level douchery.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Why? I think that's a good agreement not to poach. Employees are free to do whatever they please. We had it with one competitor...completely unwritten so just a general courtesy agreement. I'm not even sure it was ever officially discussed, it just didn't happen and if an employee switched teams a courtesy call would be made.
My memory is that it was an agreement not to hire each others’ workers under any circumstances, not just an agreement not to recruit. Sorry if I didn’t express that correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
^Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe had a mutual agreement that was very similar- https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-indus...ching-lawsuit/
That's about how things went when my company got acquired. Though the CEO of the acquiring company did promise us some equity so we each got 0.2% of the continuing company via RSUs (I think) but the value of that soon got diluted and basically eliminated due to another acquisition, restructuring and re-financing multiple times. Only those with older stock options made anything on the company sale, and not much at that. A few of us did get a small bonus since stock options were worthless but that was maybe a month's salary. The CEO was the only one who got a windfall since he had a sale of business bonus and two years severance written into his employment agreement. I had worked about 16hrs a day/7 days a week for months on the deal and didn't even get a thank you from him. My only reward was getting to fire the CEO as my first task post acquisition, since he would not be continuing with the company. Apparently no one told him that, so it was quite a shock getting walked out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
Most staff got an unspoken kick in the pants after the deal since they were on typical comp plans of salary plus bonus. We had been acquired by a PE firm who used debt to finance the acquisition. Most employees never got bonuses again because the PE firm saddled our entity with the debt and interest which killed our profitability, and being profitable was a pre-requisite to paying out bonuses.
Each of us in management were required to sign non-compete, NDA, etc to continue employment. I didn't care since I would take a break from work if I got laid off. When that did happen the interesting thing was one of the terms of the severance agreement stated I could not seek or accept employment with the company in the future. Umm...if you don't want me to work for you again, maybe don't hire me? So then guess what happens six months later - they come back asking me for help with some of the stuff I did that they couldn't figure out. That particular term in the severance agreement was quickly overlooked.
legal consideration != real amounts of money
Yeah, that is certainly the downside to an agreement between employers. Generally, if not always, when you try to poach someone you're going to offer them a raise from their current salary. Generally in my world it wasn't significant, so the culture and potential of advancement played a bigger part in the employees decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
This is most welcome news! Some of you may recall my recent HR battle for a prospective role I ended up turning down due to their "non-negotiable" bullcrap NCA. I wonder if I should hit them up and see if NOW they'd be willing to let me strike that from their idiotic contract.
Good on you for sticking to your guns on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontuckyFried
I can't imagine any company being able to justify a NCA. Are we to believe that whatever company this role was with needs more protection than Apple, Google, Cisco, Oracle, Netflix, Intel, etc?
No, you can't own people. And yes, the "free market" should go both ways.
I refused to sign a non compete because it was so broad that it would not be enforceable. Boss said "I know I can't enforce it but I could drag you through the courts for a while".
Thanks, and you are absolutely right in your thinking that this role did NOT need more protection than the big tech companies. Non-competes have been used more as a tool to intimidate workers more than anything these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
Agreed. NCAs have gotten SO out of hand these days, it's no longer a thing just meant for the C-suite (THAT I understand), but it's being applied to everything from salon workers to gas station attendants. It's become a means of keeping people's wages artificially low. SO glad the FTC finally laid the smack down on this nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
Yup. That's precisely the spirit of it. Most of us lowly grunts can't exactly afford to lawyer up and fight them, so we feel intimidated enough to stand down and deal with it. This is but one example of the 2-class system we've become.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid
This is why the FTC ruling is much more than a nothingburger. For decades now, noncompetes have been more about intimidation than enforcement. The FTC just pulled the teeth from that threat. I hope the ruling stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid
Unwritten cuz that’s the kinda crap you get sued over. An employee who can’t be recruited by a prospective employer due to some unwritten backroom deal reeks of anticompetitive horseshit. It keeps people in line and it keeps wages down. Ever wonder who “the Man” is? It’s you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
That's just like your opinion man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
And yes, I already stated it "could" keep wages lower if it was a deal made amongst all the competition, but it wasn't. Two out of seven is hardly an issue. It was just being respectful and not being a douchebag to the competition. Meanwhile 80% of the employees worked for 2, 3, or more of seven over the years.
And aren't you a banker or in finance? Definitely not "the man".
Oh I’m totally the man. I also don’t hesitate to recruit from friendly competitors if they have good people they aren’t taking care of.
Doubt the ruling stands.
In my company we have six month noncompetes during which people are paid their base salary (for 90% of our employees who are all highly compensated). We can waive any or all of it. We will just convert it to a six month notice period that we can also waive.
Even if the supreme bs court doesn't rule in favor, I have a feeling most county or district courts looking at a company trying to fleece a former employee will be less than enthused.
As well as adding reason and credibility when I redline it out of my next contract.
I hired two young professionals a few years ago who were given non-competes on their first day at their old firm. When I hired the first one I got a call from the Partner at their old firm threatening them and my company with legal action. Two months later I hired the second. One benefit we offer is insurance for legal fees, which includes non-compete actions. So I told them to expense their $15 a month coverage. These kids had almost zero contact with clients.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Can't wait to do that on the next go-around! Bring it, mofos!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rideski
This is the exact type of bullshit I have seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by neufox47
The fucking nerve of the previous employer to try to make it so that these young professionals can't advance their career, like he fucking owns them. It's sociopathic, narcissistic bullshit.
Lumberghs celebrate.
The worst people in the world will be celebrating this ruling.
Leave it to a Texas judge to throw a wrench.
Im sceptical the current scotus court will validate the law
The argument is basically that the FTC isn’t allowed to regulate:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Attachment 498483
Everyone somehow just missed that fact for the past 60 years or so.
FIFY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rideski
Ok Lumberg.
Chevron decision cucksQuote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong